Bomu & 9 others (Suing on behalf of all the 5190 members of Ihaleni Community Based Organization (CBO)) v Kindimba Limited & 6 others (Petition 15 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3123 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Petitioners proved proprietary/ancestral interest in the suit land
They did not; claims of ancestral occupation and historical injustice were unsupported by evidence and the NLC had already determined the land to be private freehold property
The Petitioners alleged forefathers occupied the suit parcels but adduced no proof. Some admitted not residing on the land and having been arrested for trespass. The National Land Commission, after hearing all parties, found the parcels were private freehold property of the 2nd Respondent and that claims of historical and ancestral ownership could only be considered under a proposed law on historical injustices. The Petitioners did not challenge that finding by judicial review.
Whether the suit land is Trust Land or unregistered community land
No; the NLC having determined the property private, the trust land claim does not arise and the community land claim was never proved
The Petitioners sued the County Government on the basis the land was Trust Land held in trust for the community. However, the National Land Commission's reports determined the suit parcels were private land held under freehold title by the 2nd Respondent. The court held that with the land adjudicated private, the trust land claim fell away, and the alternative claim of unregistered community land was not proved by any evidence.
Whether a party dissatisfied with the NLC's historical land injustice determination can bring a constitutional petition instead
The proper remedy is judicial review of the NLC process; courts nonetheless retain jurisdiction over particularised historical injustice claims
The court accepted, following the Court of Appeal in Chief Land Registrar v Nathan Tirop Koech, that courts have jurisdiction to determine historical injustice claims whether or not the NLC is seized of the matter. But here the Petitioners had already lodged their grievance with the NLC, which heard and determined it against them; being dissatisfied, their remedy lay in judicial review of that process, not a fresh petition resting on unproved ancestral claims.
Legal principles established
#- A claim of ancestral dispossession requires proof of the forefathers' occupation and of the dispossession
- A party dissatisfied with the National Land Commission's determination on historical land injustice should pursue judicial review of the process
- A trespasser cannot claim violation of the right to property in private land
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is dismissed with costs to the Respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 67(2)(e) of the Constitution and Section 15(3)(b) of the National Land Commission Act; Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over constitutional land claims
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bomu & 9 others (Suing on behalf of all the 5190 members of Ihaleni Community Based Organization (CBO)) v Kindimba Limited & 6 others (Petition 15 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 3123 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition dated 14th October 2015 (amended 10th November 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3123/eng@2025-04-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.